Supreme Court rebukes Bush on rights for Gitmo detainees

Friday 13th June, 07:23 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 66 Total Comments Show All

Taka313 at 11:38 PM JST - 13th June

Superlib, Thanks for the information. I had completely forgot about Padilla.

The courts are now ruling that one body (the US government) must have one policy for all people detained, whether it's you or me in Los Angeles or whether it's Obama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The courts are basically saying that foreigners arrested outside of America will be given protection under the US Constitution.

Here, we disagree. No offense, but you kind of waxed over that whole "held for years at Gitmo without charges" part. Also, you stated "arrested." To be arrested, you must be charged with something. And I believe that if we are going to hold someone for years at a time, on American soil, we should give them protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Is it less expedient? Abso-freaking-lutely. Is it the right thing to do, I believe so.

Taka
sailwind at 12:12 AM JST - 14th June

I agree with Superlib entirely and disagree with Taka. The issue to me is simple protections under the U.S Constitution are granted to those that that believe in the law of man, those that believe that they are above the law of man and feel that they are granted to commit evil acts sanctioned by their believe in God have no rights to complain how the law of man will judge them. They have given up their rights prior to even being captured and sent to the Gitmo when they are become non-citizens of their own states to commit jihad. Protection under our Constitution should not apply to those that reject our laws or the laws of their home countries out of hand. .........There should be no moral ground to argue different in my opinion.
adaydream at 12:37 AM JST - 14th June

The bush administration thinks that they can lock-up naybody they wish and change the laws or make up laws to suiot their situation. they just make'em up as they go.

That's like the reasons for attacking Iraq. remember they started out with WMD and every other day there was another reason for attacking Iraq. New day, new reason.

So when they started locking up the the bad guys, they made the rules as they go. Such FOOLS!! And to make things even worse, they conned a good portion of the public into believing that they had the right to do any damn thing they wanted to. < :-)
cleo at 12:50 AM JST - 14th June

there's only one case of an American being arrested and designated as an enemy combatant: Jose Padilla

Does John Walker Lindh not count?
Taka313 at 12:53 AM JST - 14th June

Sail, There are many who would say that our commander-in-chief (actually, moreso, our VP) would fall into that category. We're back on that slippery slope again.

Taka
SuperLib at 03:17 AM JST - 14th June

Here, we disagree. No offense, but you kind of waxed over that whole "held for years at Gitmo without charges" part.

Actually I mentioned it in my first post and then referenced Souter's opinion about it as well. I agree that they have to do something (charge or release) in a reasonable time frame. In the end that might be the cause of the government's undoing at Gitmo. Had they moved faster I'm wondering if people like Souter would have switched sides.

Either way Obama and McCain both say they're going to close Gitmo. They haven't quite said what they're going to do instead, ie bring them to the US to be tried or not. But by January of next year it's all going to end.
SezWho2 at 06:29 AM JST - 14th June

sailwind,

Protections under US law are not granted exclusively to those who "believe in" those laws. They are granted to all US citizens. The question is to what degree they are to be extended to those who are not US citizens.

In this particular case the issue is whether we may indefinitely detain people without trying them for crimes they have committed and, in fact, without establishing that they have committed crimes. In the US, prosecutorial "belief" that those suspected of crimes do not believe in the laws they are suspected of violating does not cancel those suspects' rights to legal protections. In particular, prosecutors have a limited amount of time in which to show cause for continued detention. So the question is whether we should look at this as being a basic principle of law or whether we are free to ignore laws based on our beliefs about what others believe.
Betzee at 06:51 AM JST - 14th June

Does John Walker Lindh not count?

Yes, he was captured in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and repatriated to face trial. Jose Padilla, by contrast, chose to return to the US in 2002 from his home in Jordan (?) and was arrested in O'Hare Airport in Chicago where his family lived. It's a complicated case but he was deemed an illegal enemy combatant making him eligible to be tried by a military tribunal.

Now I read Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is talking about amending the constitution to restrict the right of habeus corpus, whose roots are traced back to the Magna Carta (maybe further). Such a move reflects "authoritarian radicalism" rather than conservatism as we know it by any textbook definition.

The jettisoning of constitutional liberties is defended on the grounds, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the police look in your window?" The reason we should all care does not lie in the oft-cited scenario, "If I don't say anything next it could be me or my brother."

I'm not worried about that. Rather it's the prospect of "unaccountable government" which poses the larger threat to our way of life. What other actions can be justified on the grounds our safety is at risk? Well, I seem to remember the specter of the mushroom being used as a scaremongering tactic to build public support for a pre-emptive strike.
RedMeatKoolAid at 10:42 AM JST - 14th June

I oppose this ruling but must admit it opens up some exciting possibilities for those who oppose America's War on Terror. It appears we are basically saying terrorists and non-uniformed enemy combatants now enjoy the same legal rights granted to US citizens. So here an opportunity presents itself: Human shields, anti-war activists and Democrats can further their own causes by learning Arabic, or Pashtun, or Farsi. They can precede our troops in battle and recite the Miranda Warning to those facing capture or arrest by US forces. Show the world how to really win hearts and minds.
Taka313 at 11:50 AM JST - 14th June

Your right redmeat. It's so much easier when you (well...not YOU persay) can just, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

Taka
apecNetworks at 06:01 PM JST - 14th June

I personally do not believe these type of constitutional issues are going away. The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were written by immigrants fleeing persecution (many). Analyzing the Bill of Rights, it would be hard to NOT come to the conclusion that it would produce a liberal person. The foundation of US laws are inherently liberal. The present US is now a Superpower, w/ far greater power than the British Empire that the founding fathers fought. This Superpower is heavily dependent on the "military-industrial complex", thus leaning more toward an authoritarian tendency. The changes since the 1950's have been astounding, where a moderate republican would now be considered a "liberal". The recipe for extreme political polarity is only starting. Thus, this ruling by the Supreme Court would/should baffle many.
RedMeatKoolAid at 07:53 PM JST - 14th June

Terrorists and liberals celebrate this ruling.

By it both groups are at last able to take their common agendas - to destroy America - to the only battlefield they know offers the prospect of victory: the courts.
SezWho2 at 08:03 PM JST - 14th June

Terrorists and liberals drink milk. The next time you see a winning Indy 500 driver, be very afraid.

Some clear thinking people celebrate this ruling, too, along with people who think that there must be limits to government's power to be whimsical, even in time of war.
Taka313 at 10:40 AM JST - 15th June

Piggy-backing on Sez's post.

...and that the Constitution is something significantly more than a "Goddamn piece of paper."

Taka
Simon_Foston at 02:07 PM JST - 16th June

RedMeatKoolAid said..

"Terrorists and liberals celebrate this ruling.

By it both groups are at last able to take their common agendas - to destroy America - to the only battlefield they know offers the prospect of victory: the courts."

I've nothing at all against conservatives who have well-formed opinions about what's best for their country, but some of you knee-jerk right-wingers really do talk absolute garbage. "Liberals want to destroy America?" You'd blame just about anything on "liberals," wouldn't you. There are also so many of you, all whining on about the same thing - "liberals control the media, liberals would give federal funding to Arabs who eat babies, liberals make you constipated, liberals want you to believe we're descended from hyenas..." give it a rest, it's getting old. Besides, surely the best way to destroy America is to destroy the principles on which it's built - fair trials, Habeas Corpus, not condoning torture, adherence to international laws like the Geneva Conventions, stuff like that.